You've probably heard The First Noel song a number of times during the holiday season, right? This is the first stanza:

The First Noel, the Angels did say
Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay
In fields where they lay keeping their sheep
On a cold winter's night that was so deep.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!

How is certain being used? I couldn't find anything about in the dictionary.

In the second meaning: https://www.google.com/search?...0&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

How come christians make a big deal about sheep, but eat pigs on this day?

But isn't it a verb, in that use?

You read it as "certify to?" Unusual, but I see how it could be taken that way.

It's being used as a determiner just as you could say "the", "those", "three", "some" etc.

It means a particular, though not identified, group.

I can't see how the definition Geoff cites could be considered a verb, or indeed how "certain" could be considered a verb in any usage.

I agree that I've not heard of to certain as a verb. It's just that in this sentence, it is confusing as a determiner. While using it your and Geoff's way would work if one were to think about it as poetic license, it sure seems like a verb to me. I just wondered if previously to certain was a verb.

I did consider your and Geoff's definition, of course, but I wondered if there was an alternative meaning at one time. But I guess not.

Just out of curiosity what would your verb mean?
IT seems a perfectly commonplace usage as a determiner to me.

Well of course that was my question. However, I'd think it could means something like "respect." That is, the angels said to respect the poor shepherds as they worked because that was where the kind of Israel (according to the Christians) was born. That would very much make sense to me.

I believe the phrase was meant to differentiate the particular group from the general congregation of shepherds.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

The First Noel, the Angels did say
Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay

I don't get this syntax. The angels said the first Noel was to shepherds. The first Noel, the angels said was to shepherds. I don't get it. If we remove "was" it makes sense.

I think it needs a comma after "say.' Punctuation wasn't regimented in those days.

Its still weird. The first noel was to shepherds?

Let's add a (n unnecessary) word and repunctuate for you

The first "Noel" that the angels said was to certain (i.e. some) poor shepherds, in fileds where they lay.

The second was presumably to someone else.


I'm can't understand why people are having any difficulty at all.

quote:

poor shepherds, in fileds where they lay.

Is this where the relationship between sheep and shepherds went kinky?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

quote:

If we remove "was" it makes sense.

My thoughts, precisely, Goofy!

quote:

The first "Noel" that the angels said was to certain (i.e. some) poor shepherds, in fileds where they lay

Look at it this way, Bob. Would you say, "The linguists said was to certain poor Wordcrafters..." Or, would you say, "The linguists said to certain poor Wordcrafters..."? I, too, don't get the "was."

And if you take out "was" where is the verb in the sentence?

I would happily say, for example...

The first warning the linguists gave was to certain poor wordcrafters.

And that is structurally the same. You have muddied the waters by leaving out an important part of the subject phrase.


No, it makes perfect sense as it is. Try this

The first word I ever spoke was to my mother.

Any trouble with that one?

Let's try to clarify some more. Structurally this is like a cleft sentence.

It is equivalent to saying.

"The angels said their first 'Noel'. They said it to certain poor shepherds."

All that's been done is that for poetic effect the elements have been shifted into a less common but equally syntactically correct order.

"The first 'Noel' the angels did say.........subject
was...........................................verb
to certain poor shepherds.....................indirect object

The angels spoke to certain poor shepherds.
They said "Noel".

The angels said "Noel" to certain poor shepherds.

I am struggling to see where there can possibly be any confusion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I agree with Bob. He said it much better than I ever could. I can't understand how certain could ever be considered a verb.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
And if you take out "was" where is the verb in the sentence?

The verb is "say".
The first Noel, the angels said (it) to shepherds.

However, i think Bobs analysis is the right one.

I agree, Goofy, that I saw the "say" as the verb.

I suppose your way makes somewhat sense, though it is awkwardly stated. However, Wikipedia says the Christmas carol is likely from the 18th century, so I can understand the awkwardness.

What does flummox me, though, is why you don't see the usage as awkward. Thank heavens for Goofy or I'd feel like I was going linguistically crazy!

It's more poetic than a mere statement of fact. After all the lims you've written, I would think you would recognize that.

Absolutely, Proof. Indeed, in my third post I did attribute it to "poetic license." However, the posts here (except for Goofy's) seem to indicate that it as an everyday way of speaking. That I don't see.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I agree, Goofy, that I saw the "say" as the verb.

Well the sentence has two verbs: "was" and "did say". What I said was that if you remove "was" then the only verb is "say" and the sentence makes sense. But I think Bob has analyzed it correctly.

The first Noel (that) the angels said was to the shepherds.

Yes, I agree, Goofy. I just don't think it is a clear and convincing as apparently Bob does.

I confess my bafflement. Until this thread it had never occurred to me that there was any possibility of a misunderstanding here.

"The first Noel the angels did say" is a noun clause. It simply omits, as is perfectly grammatical, the word "that"

"The first Noel that the angels did say"

I have done my best, I can do no more.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I confess my bafflement. Until this thread it had never occurred to me that there was any possibility of a misunderstanding here.

Perhaps it was the comma that confused me. You don't normally put a comma there.

I looked at the Wikipedia entry for this carol. They show English, Cornish, and 'American' (from a 1916 book of carols) versions. We Americans generally sing the English version shown. But it's interesting that the American & English versions contrast meaning along the lines of our discussion.

English version fits Bob's parse: "The first Noel the angels did say/ Was to certain poor shepherds in fields where they lay." Meaning seems to be that the first time the angels ever said 'Noel', they said it to those shepherds.

American version: "The first Noel, the angels say to Bethlehem's shepherds as they lay." In this one, 'say' is the verb. The angels appear to be calling "The first Noel!" to the shepherds.

The Cornish (probably original) version dispenses with that pesky "first", resulting in a simpler statement: "O well, O well, the Angels did say/ To shepherds there in the fields did lay;"

Until this very day, I'd always read the first verse and chorus as one long sentence: [On] the first Noel, the angels did say-- ['t]was to certain poor shepherds in fields where they lay keeping their sheep, on a cold winter's night that was so deep-- "Noel, noel, noel, noel."

Now I'm confused. According to Wiki, what I've always believed (and heard as such) was the American version is instead the English version.

Also, according to Wiki, "Noel" means "Christmas" so how do you "say a Christmas"?

I thought "noel" meant "birth of god." Given catholic belief, that makes sense. I think the Spanish "navidad" corroborates that.

quote:

I thought "noel" meant "birth of god."

See the Wiki link in Kalleh's post. Why would it mean birth of "god", since he isn't the one being born (said he ignoring the Trinity concept).

quote:

I have done my best, I can do no more.

And, Bob, please see both Goofy's and my posts above; we did eventually agree with you so there is "no more" to do.

The only part that I personally don't agree with is that the meaning is "crystal clear."

It has been a great discussion, though. I liked your analysis, too, Bethree.

Proof, the "no" part pertains to birth, but the "el" part pertains to ELOHIM,, the pronounced form of the Hebrew deity, i.e. The Lord. The Wiki article isn't accurate. Are there any Hebrew scholars present? Call a rabbit! Or a rabbi, or François Rabelais, or something.

A noel is a Xmas carol. Noel is from Latin natalis 'birth' via Old French. The "el" part has nothing to do with the 'el in 'elohim literally plural, i.e., 'gods').

So it seems to me that these angels were singing the first Xmas carol to some convenient shepherds who happened to be tending their flocks in the middle of winter instead of being safely at home snug in their beds.

Did the angels speak "Old French"? If not, then they didn't sing a "Noel" or "carol", which are modern terms. Does anyone know exactly what they said, since no one was on site to record whatever occurred?

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
. The "el" part has nothing to do with the 'el in 'elohim literally plural, i.e., 'gods').

.

According to Etymology On Line, I'm half right. It's all from Latin, with "natalis" having the implication of the birth of a diety in this context. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=noel But, of course, nothing's certain

Well, since the carol itself is probably no older than the 18th century, the "angels" can sing in whatever language they like. Sorry if my guess at what the lines meant is at odds with your guesses. But, that's life in general: a series of disagreements among folks.

quote:

But, that's life in general: a series of disagreements among folks.

An interesting perspective, on which I disagree.

Well, I recon I'm totally wrong. Upon rereading, I see I was reading into the article what I wanted to see. Where I got the idea that noel had an alternate etymology, I don't know. Maybe from Cliff Claven. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6GTZrcoWEM

"Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this… A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”

LOL, Geoff!

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
. The "el" part has nothing to do with the 'el in 'elohim literally plural, i.e., 'gods').

.

According to Etymology On Line, I'm half right. It's all from Latin, with "natalis" having the implication of the birth of a diety in this context. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=noel But, of course, nothing's certain

My reading of the entry: the angels were singing "Happy Birthday".

What puzzles me is that, as far as I know, "birthday" is "anniversaire." Did I hang out with a weird bunch of French folks once upon a time?

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
What puzzles me is that, as far as I know, "birthday" is "anniversaire." Did I hang out with a weird bunch of French folks once upon a time?

That means "anniversary". The actual day of birth isn't an anniversary.